I understand where this is coming from, but I don't think that there's anything deceptive about the corruption route for the Hive. The choice isn't framed as "indulge in bimbo content or don't", but rather "corrupt these characters or don't". It's telegraphed as "the champ is a naughty bastard". Naughty bastards getting mindless sex slaves that aren't good for anything other than threesome scenes doesn't feel like a bait and switch at all! It feels like, rather, exactly the kind of thing that people who are into the corruption fetish would want.
Besides, the fact that consensual, temporary, on-demand bimbo content does exist for Companion Azzy - in fact, was always planned as being part of her content - kind of makes this complaint feel a little empty. The thing that you want is in the game.
I specifically clarified that I am not referring to content that I want or desire, but rather, what represents consistent and logical game design, especially for what would most likely be a fair majority of players who don't engage in the online community or forums. I can't speak to the specifics of that particular choice, because I was talking in a general sense in response to the observations Observer made, which I feel are reasonable and important to consider in a game where-in the entire gameplay loop revolves around text based narrative and character based choices.
Tarnakus, I'm having trouble figuring out how to respond to your post because it feels very off base from what I was trying to say, and is inferring some extreme notions that I don't believe I was insinuating.
So you would like a list of every kink and scenes that you are missing when you choose gender or tranform into one? Or maybe warnings on every tranformation item what you would miss after change? For that exact reason forum and wiki exist.
Well I mean, again, I can't speak for CoC2 yet, but with Trials, the devs put a lot of care into immersive telegraphing and foreshadowing to provide the players an accessible and enjoyable experience, whether via item descriptions, inner monologues, or tool-tips, without breaking immersion and maintaining consistency. The majority of people who play games do so casually, and never engage in online discussion, news, or debate, and are completely unaware of the on-going circumstances and major issues within the industry. Since the game has been officially released on steam, and the dev team have shown considerable care and talent in multiple facets of the game, whether it be squad based combat mechanics, improvements in design and accessibility from previous projects, or otherwise; you have to keep your audience in mind during the design process.
In fact, a lack of player communication is exactly why characters such as Shizuya caused significant outcry, in a game specifically built around a sex positive portrayal of mature content, being forced into a borderline non-consensual scene is a huge design flaw.
Having to rely on a wiki to play a game is a failure of game design, not an insurmountable one, and sometimes a necessary one for projects as ambitious as Dwarf Fortress, but it is at its core, a design flaw.
Are you arguing that every game in world advertised as sandbox is false advertised? Cuz in everyone of them i can nitpick something you can't do therefore it's not sandbox.
I'm rather baffled by this point, meaningful choices and interactivity are what make games stand-out in various forms of media. The entire premise of the game is that the player can create the character of their desires, determine their sexuality, and influence their personality to provide a meaningfully tailored experience. Choices that orient content to the player are fantastic, false flags that provide the illusion of depth, but instead cheat the player out of a meaningful play experience are essentially false choices, choices that aren't ever worth experiencing or doing, and are completely redundant.
There is a difference between willfully deciding not to opt into specific content, and being completely locked out of a significant amount of content due to poor communication.
Again, I can't say for sure that anything within CoC2 resides within this category, I only went off what Observer mentioned, but in general, I do hope that the game designers and writers keep this in mind with future development.
Your choices kill npc and lock you up from content (check Witcher 2 there you had 2 different second acts).
It is interesting that you brought this up, because I distinctly remember a lot of discussion and critique revolving around this facet of the second game. Because so much content that is heavily intertwined narratively is split up between separate playthroughs, I recall hearing arguments that you don't get a complete story on a single playthrough, and since replaying makes the other side of the game non-canonical, it invalidates a huge part of the experience, without being much of a direct choice in and of itself that allows the player to make an impact on the world.
In fact, the third game ignores this choice almost entirely, demonstrating that it was far too ambitious for the dev team to make meaningful design decisions around. There is careful consideration that comes up when creating diverging paths between allowing the player to create a personal experience, and creating the feeling of being cheated out of a significant amount of content that helps complete the narrative.
I do consider the sandbox elements of the game more important than creating a heavily diverging narrative. Allowing the player to openly make the decision what kind of content they are interested in, rather than having obscure consequences, is something I feel is more important for this particular gaming experience.
The rest of what you stated is essentially a non-sequitur that doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm discussing.
